UserZoom

Easy to use & a good interface

Allows us to research more because it's got a few bits included in their plans

Gets good, reliable results when we use it

It can take longer to source participants than other platforms

It's quite expensive and needs to be used a lot to justify this

Some parts of the interface can be a little much for a simple task

Flexibility with how to design tests, easy to reorder, easy to copy

Usability tests, the test builder is pretty easy

Moderated Usability Tests have a virtual observation room for stakeholders, which is EXCELLENT!

Compared with some other tools, because their video conferencing platform is web-based (vs. using Zoom, which has a desktop app), I find the connection buffers a lot and it's kind of annoying

Their screening tool on the UserZoom side (not Go) is clunky. Just let me select May, Must, or Should not for criteria rather than the weird interface design they have now.

Logic panel is a little confusing, sometimes I do a double-take, sometimes it's wonky and resets itself. It's just not as easy to use as it could be.

They haven't integrated UserZoom and UserZoom Go (formerly Validately)

It's expensive!

We signed up for a high sample size license with unlimited tests, but we're finding their panel doesn't fill as fast as their biggest competitor, UserTesting. We've struggled to fill n=100 sample tests with fairly general criteria.

A lot of their licenses only allow limited concurrent studies, whereas UserTesting had unlimited tests that you could launch at a time. It's slowed us down.

Fast participants recruitment

Various research methods

Training courses

Finding the right and good quality participants

Collection of behaviour analytics related to

Decide the layouts, navigational schemas, images, and content via user feedback

Catch usability issues before writing the code

It takes a little time to get used to. Better UX would make things better.

It's not always straightforward when it comes to the logic features.

Some surveys have errors and black screen problems which can be improved

Flag key moments

Easy communication between team members

Excellent transcription

The interface of the platform is not always easy to understand

Could be useful to show more than person at the time

Improve the chat between team members

Add features to the chat like sending images

Getting qualitative feedback

Includes quantitative study features

Easy to set-up projects / user dashboard

Expensive compared to other alternative providers.

The user dashboard doesn't look great, it's very functional.

Some very useful features - such as participant face recording - are 'locked' behind higher subscription levels.

Screen share.

Allow observers to watch and participate in the sessions.

Scheduling options.

Capturing video.

Transcripts of the sessions.

Offers a wide variety of testing types: Click Testing, Card Sorting, and Screen Recording.

Post-Test Reporting helps make sense of the pass/failure rate of certain tasks (and participants).

It is relatively easy to add and edit tasks for users.

The user-interface does feel a bit dated at times.

We have encountered some issues when a participant is using dual monitors.

We have had some participants inform us that external links have caused issues on UserZoom.

Help to be in touch with clients on a easy way.

The installation is really easy and fast.

You can use a free account and get what you need easily.

Would like to see a browser application.

Could be easier to get the link to the call.

Use-interface could be improved.

CPG online shopping experience testing: path to purchase (and everything in between) capture is excellent

Consumer demand validation: can add surveys and capture key quantitative metrics of a large number of actual users (unbiased human testers) all quite easily.

Ease of use encourages experience testing far earlier in the product development cycle (test early, test often, change according to authentic measurable results, etc.).

The more depth and agility that any UX tool offers, the more successful the offering being tested will be in the marketplace. Therefore we suggest never putting a ceiling on UX testing capabilities.

In the early days of our using UserZoom, our own UX with the tool was a bit of a challenge, but it's become far more user-friendly since then.

Their support team and customer service are very good, all staff is very knowledgeable and friendly.

Most testers we've used from their supplied tester panel, although it was not many, were pretty good at vocalizing during the test and expressing their opinions.

The user interface is pretty bad, looks dated and it's not very intuitive.

The task-based remote un-moderated tests have also a UI problem, it uses browser windows being repositioned and has some issues with dual monitors and passing the browser's approval to use the cam and mic.

Adding tasks is really simple and efficient.

The report that generates after completion of the task gives success rate and failure rate this helps us understand the participants better.

It allows to record sessions which comes handy for unmoderated usability tests.

It could improve on displaying the results after the test better or edit it better

Some users during testing found it difficult to navigate from tasks if there were external links.

Behavioral data collection: Although not perfect from what I can tell, UserZoom captures the majority of clicks and URL values when survey takers have installed the UserZoom browser extension.

Click testing: UserZoom makes it easy to do a one-page click test that is turned into a heat map, so you can identify where users would click first on a page.

Data collection without a download: By using javascript tags in your own website, you can track user's behavioral data without requiring a download, which increases feasibility for tough projects.

Block Randomization: There are some things you just can't do with the tools provided for creating sections of surveys and randomization. I can't recall off the top of my head what the issue was, but we were trying to show certain sections of a survey in a randomized order and it wasn't possible to do it at the level we wanted. Basic randomization of sections was supported.

Reporting: The reporting tool doesn't do any significance testing, and beyond filtering we don't find much use for it. The clickstreams are difficult to edit in the tool, and we typically just use Excel to do our analysis of any of the data.

Ability to link between surveys/studies: We have a repeating study that requires advanced screening and quota management, and would love to do it all within UserZoom. However, the logic available doesn't make it possible to distribute panelists based on age/HHI/etc., the way we would like to, so we have to pay a panel provider to program that portion and communicate constantly to fill quotas.

Quantitative testing can be done on the cheap compared to other quant tools or vendors... once you buy the license, you only pay for additional recruiting and you are managing the project, so there isn't the high cost of having other vendors doing the project management or running a survey etc.

Farily robust means of tracking and recording data. I also relied heavily on the excel spreadsheet of all the raw data, which you can have UZ customize for you to get what you need.

Great support system from the UserZoom team - they have researchers who can help with coding and also provide research support for a very good price.

Also they have tree testing, card sorting, survey capabilities (in addition to usability testing)... and mobile testing. and they seem to be continously be developing the tool to support additional methods.

There is some learning curve with the study programming aspect.... however, once you get the hang of it, it's pretty easy.

There is some limitations with what you can do... mainly because the study programming follows a linear model, and although there's logic that you can manipulate, I found some limitations (but never enough to cancel my study or look for an alternate due to methodology issues). The good news is that UZ also makes continued improvements in these areas as well... so I am expecting them to continue to look at this as well.